I disagree with the conflict-of-interest issues, but let's say you're right. Two of the justices (both conservative) had stepped down and the vote would have gone Gore's way and the voting continued. Now that the recount has been completed, Bush would still have won. Even if Gore would have had his way (the four counties under his standard) then he still would have lost. The only hope that he would have had was a statewide recount and he wasn't even pursuing that. According to one article I read, the recounts that were conducted my the media would have had Gore win by the slimmest of margins if it were a statewide recount, but went on to say that that recount DID NOT count the military ballots that were discarded. If those were added into the mix, then the statistics point to a slim but decisive Bush victory. Which means that the Republicans may have had screaming temper tantrums from the capital, but when all was said and done, the result would have been the same.
But that's not the point that was being made. The point was that it never should have gone to that level. It was a state issue and should have never gone to the federal level. A point that I agreed with. Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions www.endoradigital.com 630/942-5211 x-134 ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Lyons To: CF-Community Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: RE: Bush Wins! At the same time however, if you look at the links that the conservative members of the court have to the Republican Party and to the then George W. Bush Campaign for President, it should have raised a lot of worries regarding conflicts of interest. There were enough such incidents (such as family members or spouses directly employed by the Campaign Committee or the Republicans) that at any other level of the court system would have required those judges to have recused themselves. If the judgement had gone the other way, and the majority had the same significant ties to the Democratic party, the Republicans would have had screaming temper tantrums from the top of the Capitol. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:13 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bush Wins! > > > Howard, > > Great points!! I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I was > disappointed too that it came down to what it came down to. > You listen > to the arguments made by both candidates supporting their course of > action, they were both so full of holes that it wasn't even funny. I > read an article in I think in GQ months after the election and Scalia > made a comment to the effect (I can't quote exactly) that he was > disappointed that it had to come what it had to come to but believed > that they made the best decision under the law and under the > circumstances. Again, not a direct quote but that's what I > remember the > tenor of his statement being. > > Michael Corrigan > Programmer > Endora Digital Solutions > www.endoradigital.com > 630/942-5211 x-134 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: CF-Community > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:26 AM > Subject: RE: Bush Wins! > > > There are many ways to slice what the Supreme Court did. A > friend has > argued that the conservative court followed it's conservative > philosophy by > deciding that the "weight" of the vote carried the day and that > getting a > precise count was of a secondary concern (we are governed by a > representative system, after all, not a democracy). I > believe Burke > (the > father of modern conservative thought) held this view of voting. > > Of course, I, as a conservative, believe that the court is > supposed to > judge > the law, not make it. I oppose an activist court. I'm a > constructionalist. > In the absence of law or precedent (and only precedent > founded on the > law or > precedent, etc) should carry weight in a decision. In the > absence of > such > support, the court should sit back and do nothing and let > Congress or > the > Executive figure it out. This is how I believe our checks and > balances > system was designed. > > In Gore vs. Bush (or was it Bush vs. Gore) I believe the Court's > biggest > non-conservative moment came in stepping in to decide what was > essentially a > state's-rights issue. It wasn't a federal issue. There was no > federal > issue at stake. > > So you had this court, in straight-faced irony, throwing > out cherished > conservative principles -- deciding law and butting into a state > issue, > being down right activist. > > Now you have the further irony of super liberals like Alan > Dershowitz > criticizing the court for being activist and making law, when for > years > these same liberals have defended and defied such activist > decisions > as Roe > vs. Wade (there is absolutely no Constitutional support for the > decision -- > regardless of what you think about abortion, Roe vs. Wade was just > plain > stupid, even left-leaning justice Ginsberg believes the > Constitution > was > misapplied). > > It's strange times we live in. Conservatives behaving like > liberals > and > liberals attacking them for it. > > But in the end, I stand by my original statement. The > system worked. > We'll > never cross all the T's and dot all the I's correctly. Few > things we > ever > do will be arrived at in a perfect course of action and dialog. Our > system > wasn't designed to work that way. It was designed to route around > human > imperfection. In the end, we got the president we > deserved, and even > though > I'm still somewhat skeptical of Bush, we could have had a > lot worse if > our > system had let us down. > > H. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:06 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bush Wins! > > > One could also suggest that what the Supreme Court did was criminal > (as a > matter of fact there are a few books that deal with this - > one by Alan Dershowitz). The system only works completely when the > individual branches of government heed the boundaries. > Personally, I still think that Bush probably still would > have gotten > in (as > the real remedy was for Congress to step in and they > were controlled by the Republicans) but it troubles me to > see that the > court > did what they did. > > Howie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:50 PM > Subject: RE: Bush Wins! > > > > Well, yes, but ... > > > > If you count the votes they way Gore wanted the votes > counted, Bush > wins. > > > > If you counted the votes the way they should have been > counted (all > of the > > votes, both under and over and this chad and that chad, > etc.), then > Gore > > wins. > > > > But the bottom line is, the system worked. We had a contested > election. > One > > branch of the government made a decision about how the outcome > should be > > decided and that led to an eventual declaration of a > winner. There > was no > > civil war, no coups, no civil unrest (at least of the kind that > leads to > > death and destruction). Yes, one could make the case that there > were > flaws > > in the system, that there were some possible this or > possible that > in the > > political hanky-panky realm, but in the end, we had a smooth > transition of > > power, which is the most important thing we could ask for. > > > > H. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
